SANTOSH TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to assail the first information report, dtd. 27/5/2022, registered as Case Crime No. 172 of 2022 (contained in annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj, on the ground that the FIR contains false accusations and that cognizance in the matter can only be taken only upon a complaint filed by the concerned court, by virtue of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C., and in its absence the lodging of FIR is an abuse of the process of law.

(2.) In substance, the allegation in the impugned FIR is that a previous FIR, being Case Crime No. 553 of 2020, under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, 452 and 308 IPC, was lodged by the petitioners against the informant of the present case alleging commissioning of various offences, including an offence under Sec. 308 IPC. It is then alleged that in order to substantiate offence under Sec. 308 IPC a document in the form of a medical report has been fabricated by the petitioners during the course of investigation in Case Crime No.553 of 2020, suggesting a fracture on the head of the informant/victim, which has been later found in an inquiry to be a manipulated document. The medical report, which is alleged to be fabricated, is a C.T. Scan report purportedly issued by the Department of Radiology, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Prayagraj. This C.T. Scan report is at page 31 of the short counter affidavit filed by the State. This report contains a handwritten note that "there is fracture of frontal bone in midline extending to involve ethmoidal lamellae (B/L) with resultant frontal and ethmoidal hemosinus cauminutted fracture of B/L nasal bones and (L) zygomatu process and ant. wall of (L) masill antr". This report is said to have been issued by Dr. M.C. Pant, who has opined that the handwritten part of the C.T. Scan report is not a part of the report actually issued by him. It has also been opined by the doctor that only non-medico reports are issued by his department and the "M.L.C." mentioned in the C.T. Scan report suggesting fracture is actually never issued by his department. It is also opined in the enquiry that there was actually no fracture caused and the handwritten part of the report is a fraudulent interpolation.

(3.) Lodgement of the FIR against the petitioners is challenged on the ground that no interpolation is made in the C.T. Scan report by the petitioners, as the C.T. Scan report was obtained by the Investigating Officer from the hospital concerned and the petitioners cannot be made liable for it. It is also urged that lodgement of the impugned FIR is impermissible, as the same is hit by Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. Such contention was noticed by us vide our order dtd. 8/7/2022, which reads as follows:-